JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) AN application under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 for petitioner-tenants eviction was filed before the Rent Controlling authority by the landlord-non-petitioner. In that case a two-fold objection was taken to the maintainability of the application and the objection having been rejected, this revision is preferred. ( 2. ) SHRI S. B. Mishra, Petitioners counsel, has reiterated both objections but I am satisfied only to uphold one and on that ground itself I am inclined to quash the impugned order. I do not find any merit in the other contention of Shri Mishra, which i would like to deal and dispose of first. ( 3. ) IT is submitted by Shri Mishra that because the landlord had earlier filed a suit in the civil Court in which he had inter alia taken the ground of sub-letting; that though he had later withdrawn the suit no eviction order under Section 23-A can be passed in the instant proceeding by the Authority directing the petitioner (tenant) to put the non-petitioner (landlord) in possession of the suit house. The contention is evidently. founded on the misconception that despite withdrawal of the suit the factum of sub-letting stated in the plaint in that suit should be construed as an admission on the part of the non-petitioner that the suit house was not in possession of the petitioner but of somebody else. The fallacy in the argument is so obvious that to deal therewith no consideration or discussion of complicated facts is necessary. If the withdrawal of the suit proved anything it definitely rather proved that whatever averments or statements were made in the plaint in the earlier suit were given a go-by by the plaintiff himself. No question of admission of any fact by the plaintiff arises in the circumstances of this case and accordingly I find no merit in counsels submission that the Authority could not have jurisdiction to entertain the application made under Section 23-A to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act despite withdrawal of the earlier suit by the non-petitioner. ( 4. ) HOWEVER, there is much merit in the second contention of the petitioner which indeed is founded on a decision of this Court rendered on 28-3-1986 in devendra Singhs case C. R. No. 228 of 1985. ( 4. ) HOWEVER, there is much merit in the second contention of the petitioner which indeed is founded on a decision of this Court rendered on 28-3-1986 in devendra Singhs case C. R. No. 228 of 1985. The impugned order in the instant case was passed on 28-4-1986 and what was held therein evidently violated the judicial dicta to the contrary in the decision aforesaid that whenever two grounds are urged for eviction in an application under Section 23-A it is not for the Authority to make choice or option for the party concerned in order to take seisin of the matter. The admitted position in the instant case is that the non-petitioner/landlord had not filed any application giving up any round or prayer which he had urged in his application. Shri shiv Om Agarwal, appearing for the non-petitioner, tried to contest the factual position in the instant case by submitting that although in the application relief was also claimed for a decree for arrears of rent and payment of interim rent till disposal of the suit, the prayer or the relief claimed ought not to be construed as a ground for eviction. However, I see no merit in the contention which has only to be stated to be rejected. When a relief is prayed and there is definite allegation in para 5 of the application itself that the tenant/petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent despite demands, what would these facts institute if not a ground for eviction ? There is no escape from the conclusion in these circumstances, according to me, that one of the grounds urged in support of the prayer for eviction was also non-payment of arrears of rent. It was incompetent, therefore, on the part of the Authority acting in violation of the decision in Devendra Singhs case (supra) to hold the application to be maintainable. The utmost which the Authority could do in such circumstances was to allow the landlord an opportunity to make a prayer for amendment of the application so that the only ground amendable to the jurisdiction of the Authority remained to be adjudicated; and nothing else. This, unfortunately, not having been done and jurisdiction having been assumed on the application as it was filed, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. ( 5. This, unfortunately, not having been done and jurisdiction having been assumed on the application as it was filed, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. ( 5. ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed albeit with a direction which follows hereinafter. The impugned order is quashed. However, it is to be made clear here that should the landlord/non-petitioner consider advisable to make any prayer for amendment, the same should be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with law. It is also to be made clear that if no such application is made within the time to be allowed by the Authority, the matter must be deemed finally disposed of and it shall not be necessary to render fresh decision on the question of maintainability, which question I have already decided in this matter, on the original application, against the non-petitioner/lanadlord. Nothing further need be said at this stage in this matter in view of the limited liberty granted to the non-petitioner to take appropriate steps if so advised No costs. Petition allowed.